The AAR and Mississippi navigation (was: "comedy act....")

[Anonymous]

I will be sure and tell the guys running the dredge you said they don't really cause pollution like the EPA says...

Which is why much of the time dredge spoils are dumped right back in the river outside the navigation channels, creating new riparian habitat.  Such is the plan for dredging the Snake and Clearwater Rivers out this way.

Or are you saying that temporarily stirring up what's embedded in the muck causes pollution?  I'm sure the boys at the EPA forgot that when they ordered the dredging of the Hudson River to remove GE's dioxin.

Seems like you're suggesting that it's bad to dredge for navigation, but okay to dredge if it's not for navigation.

[Anonymous]

But isn't it also true that dredging, the installation of locks and flood abatement projects have drastically altered the environmental profile of the Mississippi delta?

"Drastically" is such a subjective, emotive word.

Altered, yes.  Drastically?    Define your take of what "drastic" would be.

It's a good thing those railroad projects don't "drastically" alter the landscape, huh?

[Murphy Siding]

...single stroke engines...

     You know- they have that distinctive sound, kind of like the sound of one hand clapping.

[tree68]

...single stroke engines...

[edblysard]

Hummm.

So what you are saying is that when the Harris County Navigation District dredges the Houston ship channel, they really don't have to transport the dredge material to an EPA managed land fill on highway 90, like they have been forced to do for decades?

 

I will be sure and tell the guys running the dredge you said they don't really cause pollution like the EPA says...

 

Oh, and if you are out on a small fishing boat that leaks fuel, hope you have a fire extinguisher on hand, and a life preserver.

Next time you see one leaking, let me know, I will call the Coast Guard for ya....they love fuel leaking boats, sorta job security if you get my drift.

Futuremodal, are you implying that commerce/industry should not be held accountable for environmental damages?

No, I'm saying *environmental damage* from such things as dredging or lock maintenance is non-existent.  An EIS is required for virtually every project that might dip into a waterway.  One of the local barge ports up here had to abandon plans for a new small riverside dock due to costs associated with the EIS requirements.  The way the law is written, river users must prove beyond a reasonable doubt (at their expense) that water-borne development activities won't harm the environment, rather than forcing the eco-nuts to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it will (and at the eco-nuts expense).  Ergo, a lot of unrealistic draconian fantasies are brought to the table as *possibillities* that must be discounted on each point.

It is somewhat ironic, since private fishing boats will spill noticable amounts of  fuel into a river from single stroke engines, yet the possibility that USACE maintenance dredging might stir up a little mud is cause for a full scale panic.

[Datafever]

But isn't it also true that dredging, the installation of locks and flood abatement projects have drastically altered the environmental profile of the Mississippi delta?

[Anonymous]

Futuremodal, are you implying that commerce/industry should not be held accountable for environmental damages?

No, I'm saying *environmental damage* from such things as dredging or lock maintenance is non-existent.  An EIS is required for virtually every project that might dip into a waterway.  One of the local barge ports up here had to abandon plans for a new small riverside dock due to costs associated with the EIS requirements.  The way the law is written, river users must prove beyond a reasonable doubt (at their expense) that water-borne development activities won't harm the environment, rather than forcing the eco-nuts to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it will (and at the eco-nuts expense).  Ergo, a lot of unrealistic draconian fantasies are brought to the table as *possibillities* that must be discounted on each point.

It is somewhat ironic, since private fishing boats will spill noticable amounts of  fuel into a river from single stroke engines, yet the possibility that USACE maintenance dredging might stir up a little mud is cause for a full scale panic.

[Datafever]

Futuremodal, are you implying that commerce/industry should not be held accountable for environmental damages?

[Anonymous]

Futuremodal, you state that barge traffic pays its own way when environmental costs are excluded.  But since railroads must pay those same environmental costs out of their own pocket, doesn't that still amount to a subsidy for the barges?

Two things:  There tends to be more environmental hyperactivity related to waterways than to dry land.  Secondly, since the USACE is a government agency, they get more of the eco-interference than a private entity would. 

I would expect that the DM&E project, being one that is to be funded partly by federal funds and needing eminent domain for brand new ROW, will also experience a greater than average share of eco-litigation than most railroads would experience, but not to the level experienced by the USACE.

[Datafever]

Futuremodal, you state that barge traffic pays its own way when environmental costs are excluded.  But since railroads must pay those same environmental costs out of their own pocket, doesn't that still amount to a subsidy for the barges?

[Anonymous]

Sorry that I seem to be so emotional about the subject.  It's that I have little tolerance for someone that presents a view as a fact, expecially when it is contrary to some farily solid evidence.  Beyond the lack of any supporting evidence, some of the things you present as fact are total nonsense.  You suggest that since the a dredging is good for 15 years that this year's expenditure should be then amortized over 15 years.  Are you implying that the entire Mississippi system is being dredged this year?  An an

You talk of prior usage rights, that is, I assume prior to the work of the Corps, suggest that the Mississippi in its natural state was useful for something like the barge transport systems in use today.  That indicates to me that you have zero knowledge of that waterway.

You present your usual babble about the cost of environmental studies and litigation as being some major part of the Corps expense hidden appearantly in the maintenance and operation budgets, yet haven't shown the first dollar figure to support your claim.

And so on. 

If you wonder why you get little respect on this forum, perhaps it is because you present your opinions as matters of fact, and then say that they are the truth.  Because you said so?

I gave you a chance to be a mature reasonable adult, and you are choosing to act like a willfull child.

Read 'em and weep:

http://www.mvn.usace.army.mil/pao/history/MISSRNAV/steamboat.asp

You'll notice that barging actually began in earnest during the steamboat era:

"In 1907, the Sprague set a world's all-time record for towing-60 barges of coal, weighing 67,307 tons, covering an area of 6-1/2 acres, and measuring 925 feet by 312 feet."

So yes, barging predates Congressionally mandated navigation improvements. 

Please read further:

http://www.mvn.usace.army.mil/pao/history/MISSRNAV/federal.asp

http://www.mvn.usace.army.mil/pao/history/MISSRNAV/commerce.asp

http://www.mvn.usace.army.mil/pao/history/MISSRNAV/river.asp

Here's the Upper Mississippi River navigation plan:

http://www2.mvr.usace.army.mil/umr-iwwsns/

Quote of note:  "Its first costs are the $5.7 billion framework for ecosystem restoration and a $2.6 billion for the navigation efficiency improvements."

As I said previously, the greatest *cost* of these projects are the environmental costs, not the physical navigation project itself.  Here you see that the faux costs due to eco-legislation are more than two times the actual cost of the navigation improvements.

Cost of dredging for USACE:

http://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/ndc/dredge/ddcosts.htm

As you can see, the cost of dredging has basically doubled from 10 years ago.  Why do you think that is?  The basics of dredging haven't changed, nor can you chalk it up to normal inflation.  Clearly, it is nothing but eco-costs imposed on the USACE that have pushed these costs well beyond the actual physical act of clearing snags and muck from the river bottom.

When we add an inflation adjusted analysis, from 1963 to present the cost of dredging has still nearly doubled, all due to ever increasing strictness of eco laws:

http://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/ndc/dredge/ddhisMsum.pdf

So you see, even though such things are common knowledge in general, Jay just can't fathom such things without actual reference.  From the American Waterways Operators:

http://www.americanwaterways.com/press_room/issue_briefs/full_funding.html

"Half the cost of capital construction and major rehabilitation projects on the inland waterways system is paid from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund."

Are you getting yet, Jay?  Half the costs of navigation is paid from the Trust Fund, and half the costs of maintaining navigation is due to environmental add ons.  Ergo, barging pays it's own way.  Both you and Mr. White are wrong in spirit to suggest otherwise.

So I'll ask you again - why should the barging companies be forced to pay for these faux cost increases beyond the actual physical costs?  What the barging companies pay into the Waterway Trust Fund is sufficient to cover the physical costs, so let the econuts pay the difference, right?

Proof that the Trust Fund is raided by federal budgeteers:

http://www.littleriverbooks.com/waterwayswork.pdf

 

This is why I have no respect for your constant personal attacks.  You will not use your brain to put two and two together and come up with a reasonable synopsis of the facts at hand, instead demanding a full scale study for each point made.  Well, sorry you cannot seem to access this same informtation when you dug through your sources for your USACE numbers you provided.  Of course, you provided no links, so I'll just "pull a Jay" and state that beyond the lack of any supporting evidence, some of the things you present as fact are total nonsense.  (Sound familiar?  It should - it's your words verbatum).

 

[jeaton]

Sorry that I seem to be so emotional about the subject.  It's that I have little tolerance for someone that presents a view as a fact, expecially when it is contrary to some farily solid evidence.  Beyond the lack of any supporting evidence, some of the things you present as fact are total nonsense.  You suggest that since the a dredging is good for 15 years that this year's expenditure should be then amortized over 15 years.  Are you implying that the entire Mississippi system is being dredged this year?  An an

You talk of prior usage rights, that is, I assume prior to the work of the Corps, suggest that the Mississippi in its natural state was useful for something like the barge transport systems in use today.  That indicates to me that you have zero knowledge of that waterway.

You present your usual babble about the cost of environmental studies and litigation as being some major part of the Corps expense hidden appearantly in the maintenance and operation budgets, yet haven't shown the first dollar figure to support your claim.

And so on. 

If you wonder why you get little respect on this forum, perhaps it is because you present your opinions as matters of fact, and then say that they are the truth.  Because you said so?

[Anonymous]

Jay, I don't really know why this is so hard for you to understand, nor why you seem so emotional about it.  I'll go over the facts again so you'll understand:

1.  Mr. White of the AAR made a point of suggesting that barge lines were subsidized, inferring that railroads aren't.  Nothing could be further from the truth, as Jay well knows.

2.  I made the point that since there is a prior usage right on the Mississippi, subsequent development on that river is prohibited by statute to inhibit said navigation.  Thus, the fees paid by the barge lines more than cover their rightful cost of using the "new and improved" navigation system, unless you count flood control et al as being a responsibility of the barge lines.  After all, all waterway systems are open access.

3.  I pointed out that historically the barge lines have paid more into the Waterways Trust Fund than what has been forthcoming in navigation improvements by the Corps.  Current anomolies don't discount this point.  Dredging and lock maintenance are not yearly expenses, more like every 10 to 15 years, so it would make sense to divide the current commercial navigation budget of the Corps over that time period.  Puts the true cost into perspective.

To add to this discussion, Jay made mention of the fact that post-dam navigation may have draft depth that exceeds that of pre-dam navigation.  So what?  Is the Corps supposed to minimize such improvements?  Remember also that railroad lines have been re-aligned due to river projects, such as the UP along the Columbia River.  The UP line pre-dam was rather heavy on the curvature, post-dam was rebuilt with gentler wider curvature.  Was the Corps supposed to replace the UP line as it was with the exact same curvature?  Of course not, that's not the American way.  We like our rebuilds to be better than the old ones.

Consider also that the Corps is required by law to maintain a certain navigation depth for it's projects that disrupt prior river navigation.  If the barge lines all went away, leaving only private and recreational shipping, the Corps would still have to maintain the draft and locks at it's required state.

It is also worth noting that the Corps budget for navigation expenses tend to be two or three times the actual physical cost of such projects due to the ever present requirement for an EIS, usually followed by an environmental lawsuit, further followed by a revamped EIS, etc. etc. etc.  How do you think the railroads would fare if they were required to complete an EIS every time they reballasted the tracks?  In cases where the dredging projects are delayed over a long period of time, the barge lines and/or river ports themselves would gladly take on the chore of dredging and maintenance of navigation aids themselves (and at a fraction of the C of E budget for such things), but they cannot legally do so.

Thus, you can argue that under the extreme de jure perspective barging doesn't pay the costs of maintaining navigation on the Mississippi, but I would challenge that take under the de facto perspective.  Just because bureauacracy and eco-litigation take navigation costs far beyond the basic physical costs doens't mean that the users are supposed to be morally responsible for such money wasting actions by anti-barge entities.  If anything, let the interfering entities pay those costs since they (the bad guys) are the ones who generate such wastefullness.

The bottom line is this:  Barging is a lower cost mode of transporting bulk commodities at low speed than it is for railroads after all costs are accounted for, assuming river or canal navigation is available.  Railroads are best at transporting bulk commodities at relatively high speed, and of course can go places barges can't.  And the US multimodal transportation system works best when all the modes work in concert for the most efficient moves, not when one mode tries to monopolize traffic to fatten the cats.

BTW - I'll make a bet that the TVA opts to keep the barging move (as long as it is still physically available) after they research current rail practices as they relate to utilities.  Any takers?

[jeaton]

FM

Once again we see that you state that the facts are wrong in order to avoid upsetting your view of the world.  You really ought to get yourself a time slot on the local AM radio station.  With a sure supply of ditto heads, I am sure you would find it quite rewarding.

Tax Revenue going into the Inland Waterways Trust Fund for the 12 months ending November,2006 were $80.8 million and the trust fund balance was $249 million.  Use the entire balance of $249 million instead of the $177 million that the Corps plans to use and you still see a "slight" shortfall.

If you want to argue that the Corps maintains a 12 foot navigation channel so some fisherman can run his 250 horsepower bass boat to a good spot, be my guest.

I suppose I could be wrong, but I think that the Corps would put the Katrina related expense into the Category of Flood/Storm Damage Reduction for which they have separate scheduled $1.291 billion.  Further, the regional breakdowns only show about $260 million going for Navagation and Flood Control for the lower portion of the Mississippi that includes New Orleans.

 And speaking of mincing words, perhaps you can dig up a quote from the AAR stating that the railroads are a "purely private" enterprise.  I doubt that there are many barge lines that will call themselves anything but "private businesses" any more than any other kind of business that has received grants, loans or services in kind from the government.

Finally, I am not going to get into your diversion about who gets what and for what and the relative merits.  Frankly, it does not bother me one bit that large sums of money go to maintain waterways and facilities around the country, as I believe that it is of benefit to the general economic well being.  My point is that your contention that the barge lines fully pay for the benefits they recieve from the govern is total BS.

You're certainly entitled to your view, but you have to obfuscate the facts to arrive at your conclusions.  Not a problem, since you seem to have no problem with a general maintenance of the nation's transportation infrastructure.

I have pointed out the grey area of who should pay for what when a prior usage factor is disrupted by development.  It's too bad we don't have a situation where a free flowing river is maintained soley for barge movement, e.g. no dams, no locks, no private boaters, no environmental *mitigation*.  We do have some natural harbors and free flowing rivers being dredged for ships but not barging.

May I also point out that the Corps budget is like that of any other government entity, where funds from one area may be transferred to another area to keep things prioritized.  Historically, the Waterways and Harbor funds have been raided like Social Security to minimize general budget growth, both externally and internally.  Therefore, taking this post-Katrina spending period out of context is a bit disingenuous for analysis sake.

And I will state it clearly - barge lines not only fully pay there own way year in and year out, they pay the way of non-commercial users as well.  You can argue that point if you discount prior usage, selected municiple port development, et al, but if you do so you are on a slippery slope.

BTW - did you come up with those figures yet for total rail related tax expenditures?

I always find it interesting when someone who is convinced that their view on everything is always correct is confronted by evidence suggesting that they are wrong.  It always seems to follow that allegations of obsfucation and disingenuous analysis will be made.  That, or else the suggestion is made that the facts are wrong.

Your allegation that barge lines not only pay their way, but also pay for the recreational use is so out of wack as to be a joke.  I have looked at the numbers for taxes into the Fund from 1990 and I will tell you that it has been consistently chicken feed compared to the Corps expenditures that are identified as for Commercial Navigation.  As with the numbers on grants to railroads, I won't be digging them up. You are the one who wishes to make some point by comparing railroad numbers to the Corps numbers, and of course, if they don't happen to support your view, you will dismiss them as be not applicable 

By the way, just as you, I am sure the railroads would wish that the Government had never gotten into the development of the inland water way system.  Had that been the case, the conveyances for Mississippi River freight would look much more like the pre-civil war rafts than today's massive tows.  Can you imagine the level of the monolistic railroad coal rates to those riverside power plants?

[Anonymous]

FM

Once again we see that you state that the facts are wrong in order to avoid upsetting your view of the world.  You really ought to get yourself a time slot on the local AM radio station.  With a sure supply of ditto heads, I am sure you would find it quite rewarding.

Tax Revenue going into the Inland Waterways Trust Fund for the 12 months ending November,2006 were $80.8 million and the trust fund balance was $249 million.  Use the entire balance of $249 million instead of the $177 million that the Corps plans to use and you still see a "slight" shortfall.

If you want to argue that the Corps maintains a 12 foot navigation channel so some fisherman can run his 250 horsepower bass boat to a good spot, be my guest.

I suppose I could be wrong, but I think that the Corps would put the Katrina related expense into the Category of Flood/Storm Damage Reduction for which they have separate scheduled $1.291 billion.  Further, the regional breakdowns only show about $260 million going for Navagation and Flood Control for the lower portion of the Mississippi that includes New Orleans.

 And speaking of mincing words, perhaps you can dig up a quote from the AAR stating that the railroads are a "purely private" enterprise.  I doubt that there are many barge lines that will call themselves anything but "private businesses" any more than any other kind of business that has received grants, loans or services in kind from the government.

Finally, I am not going to get into your diversion about who gets what and for what and the relative merits.  Frankly, it does not bother me one bit that large sums of money go to maintain waterways and facilities around the country, as I believe that it is of benefit to the general economic well being.  My point is that your contention that the barge lines fully pay for the benefits they recieve from the govern is total BS.

You're certainly entitled to your view, but you have to obfuscate the facts to arrive at your conclusions.  Not a problem, since you seem to have no problem with a general maintenance of the nation's transportation infrastructure.

I have pointed out the grey area of who should pay for what when a prior usage factor is disrupted by development.  It's too bad we don't have a situation where a free flowing river is maintained soley for barge movement, e.g. no dams, no locks, no private boaters, no environmental *mitigation*.  We do have some natural harbors and free flowing rivers being dredged for ships but not barging.

May I also point out that the Corps budget is like that of any other government entity, where funds from one area may be transferred to another area to keep things prioritized.  Historically, the Waterways and Harbor funds have been raided like Social Security to minimize general budget growth, both externally and internally.  Therefore, taking this post-Katrina spending period out of context is a bit disingenuous for analysis sake.

And I will state it clearly - barge lines not only fully pay there own way year in and year out, they pay the way of non-commercial users as well.  You can argue that point if you discount prior usage, selected municiple port development, et al, but if you do so you are on a slippery slope.

BTW - did you come up with those figures yet for total rail related tax expenditures?

[jeaton]

FM

Once again we see that you state that the facts are wrong in order to avoid upsetting your view of the world.  You really ought to get yourself a time slot on the local AM radio station.  With a sure supply of ditto heads, I am sure you would find it quite rewarding.

Tax Revenue going into the Inland Waterways Trust Fund for the 12 months ending November,2006 were $80.8 million and the trust fund balance was $249 million.  Use the entire balance of $249 million instead of the $177 million that the Corps plans to use and you still see a "slight" shortfall.

If you want to argue that the Corps maintains a 12 foot navigation channel so some fisherman can run his 250 horsepower bass boat to a good spot, be my guest.

I suppose I could be wrong, but I think that the Corps would put the Katrina related expense into the Category of Flood/Storm Damage Reduction for which they have separate scheduled $1.291 billion.  Further, the regional breakdowns only show about $260 million going for Navagation and Flood Control for the lower portion of the Mississippi that includes New Orleans.

 And speaking of mincing words, perhaps you can dig up a quote from the AAR stating that the railroads are a "purely private" enterprise.  I doubt that there are many barge lines that will call themselves anything but "private businesses" any more than any other kind of business that has received grants, loans or services in kind from the government.

Finally, I am not going to get into your diversion about who gets what and for what and the relative merits.  Frankly, it does not bother me one bit that large sums of money go to maintain waterways and facilities around the country, as I believe that it is of benefit to the general economic well being.  My point is that your contention that the barge lines fully pay for the benefits they recieve from the govern is total BS.

 

[Anonymous]

Barge companies pay into a Waterway Trust Fund, from which the federal government gets another deficit buffer.  Currently, barge companies pay more into the fund than what they are getting out if it.

Oh really?  From the Corps of Engineer's Fiscal Year 2007 Budget Request:

CofE Commercial Business Line: Construction, Operations and Maintenance Requested Appropriations-
$1.866 billion.

Sources of Appropriations:  Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, Inland Waterways Trust Fund, Special Recreation User Fees and Disposal Facilities User Fees Total $905 million.

Amount from General Fund to cover the difference:  $961 million.  And another $2.886 billion from the General Fund is kicked in to cover all the other stuff that the Corps does.

Just to get a little more specific expenditures for Navagation just on the Mississippi River and tributaries are $359 million for construction and $542 million for Operations and Maintenance for a total of $901 million.

Totals recieved from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund: $197 million 

You do understand the concepts of more and less?

First, you do understand that most of the Corps budget request of late is for that whole New Orleans fiasco, right?

Second, when was the last time the Corps got what they requested?

Lastly, you do understand that those budget requests on the Mississippi are related to the entire operation, and not just the barging portion?  Like I tried to point out a few posts back, the waterway system is used for more than just barging - flood control, recreational navigation, private navigation, electricity generation, wildlife mitigation, wetlands enhancement, et al.

Like it or not, barging does pay it's fair share.  Kick out the private and recreational users of the waterway system, and put the wildlife and wetlands mitigation in it's proper context, maybe then you might have an argument.

Sorry I excluded a key word in second line of my post above.  That should be CofE Commercial Navagation Business Line.

Commercial Navagation is a business line with a separate reporting from the other business lines, which include Flood/Storm Damage Reduction, Recreation, Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration, Environmental Stewardship, Hydro-Power, Water Supply, Emergency Management, Regulatory Program and the all important $164 million for Executive Direction & Management.

So just to be clear the Mississippi River and Tributaries expenses for Construction, Operations and Maintenance for the Commercial Navagation business line FY2007 is scheduled to be $901 million.  The Inland Waterways Trust Fund will provide $177 million for FY 2007.

You're simply mincing words.  The Commercial Navigation system is used by non commercial users as well as commercial users.  It is interactive, ergo you cannot functionally separate the two de facto, just de jure for accounting purposes.  There is also the caveat of maintaining pre-dam usage of the river system, something for which no commercial or recreational user of the system should have to pay for.

Something else to keep in mind - that $177 million from the Waterway Trust Fund is but a small portion of the entire Waterway Trust Fund.

So what we have here is basically half of all Mississippi navigation projects paid for via user fees and half paid for from the general fund.  Wanna make a bet that most of that is Katrina related?  Perhaps you think that railroads don't need a refunctioning Port of New Orleans. 

Just for fun, let's compare that $1.866 billion for waterway maintenance with the billions being allocated for rail projects in this country.  Which mode is getting more right now?  PS - yes, I'm including transit. 

Care to take a stab at that one?

I think once we get this all put in perspective, it becomes clear that rail gets as much via the federal dole as barging, perhaps even more.  That's the point of contention I have with the AAR, which wants to paint a picture of pure privatization for rail.

[jeaton]

Barge companies pay into a Waterway Trust Fund, from which the federal government gets another deficit buffer.  Currently, barge companies pay more into the fund than what they are getting out if it.

Oh really?  From the Corps of Engineer's Fiscal Year 2007 Budget Request:

CofE Commercial Business Line: Construction, Operations and Maintenance Requested Appropriations-
$1.866 billion.

Sources of Appropriations:  Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, Inland Waterways Trust Fund, Special Recreation User Fees and Disposal Facilities User Fees Total $905 million.

Amount from General Fund to cover the difference:  $961 million.  And another $2.886 billion from the General Fund is kicked in to cover all the other stuff that the Corps does.

Just to get a little more specific expenditures for Navagation just on the Mississippi River and tributaries are $359 million for construction and $542 million for Operations and Maintenance for a total of $901 million.

Totals recieved from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund: $197 million 

You do understand the concepts of more and less?

First, you do understand that most of the Corps budget request of late is for that whole New Orleans fiasco, right?

Second, when was the last time the Corps got what they requested?

Lastly, you do understand that those budget requests on the Mississippi are related to the entire operation, and not just the barging portion?  Like I tried to point out a few posts back, the waterway system is used for more than just barging - flood control, recreational navigation, private navigation, electricity generation, wildlife mitigation, wetlands enhancement, et al.

Like it or not, barging does pay it's fair share.  Kick out the private and recreational users of the waterway system, and put the wildlife and wetlands mitigation in it's proper context, maybe then you might have an argument.

Sorry I excluded a key word in second line of my post above.  That should be CofE Commercial Navagation Business Line.

Commercial Navagation is a business line with a separate reporting from the other business lines, which include Flood/Storm Damage Reduction, Recreation, Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration, Environmental Stewardship, Hydro-Power, Water Supply, Emergency Management, Regulatory Program and the all important $164 million for Executive Direction & Management.

So just to be clear the Mississippi River and Tributaries expenses for Construction, Operations and Maintenance for the Commercial Navagation business line FY2007 is scheduled to be $901 million.  The Inland Waterways Trust Fund will provide $177 million for FY 2007.

[Anonymous]

Barge companies pay into a Waterway Trust Fund, from which the federal government gets another deficit buffer.  Currently, barge companies pay more into the fund than what they are getting out if it.

Oh really?  From the Corps of Engineer's Fiscal Year 2007 Budget Request:

CofE Commercial Business Line: Construction, Operations and Maintenance Requested Appropriations-
$1.866 billion.

Sources of Appropriations:  Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, Inland Waterways Trust Fund, Special Recreation User Fees and Disposal Facilities User Fees Total $905 million.

Amount from General Fund to cover the difference:  $961 million.  And another $2.886 billion from the General Fund is kicked in to cover all the other stuff that the Corps does.

Just to get a little more specific expenditures for Navagation just on the Mississippi River and tributaries are $359 million for construction and $542 million for Operations and Maintenance for a total of $901 million.

Totals recieved from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund: $197 million 

You do understand the concepts of more and less?

First, you do understand that most of the Corps budget request of late is for that whole New Orleans fiasco, right?

Second, when was the last time the Corps got what they requested?

Lastly, you do understand that those budget requests on the Mississippi are related to the entire operation, and not just the barging portion?  Like I tried to point out a few posts back, the waterway system is used for more than just barging - flood control, recreational navigation, private navigation, electricity generation, wildlife mitigation, wetlands enhancement, et al.

Like it or not, barging does pay it's fair share.  Kick out the private and recreational users of the waterway system, and put the wildlife and wetlands mitigation in it's proper context, maybe then you might have an argument.

[JSGreen]

One problem you have in allocating "true" costs of barging is how to allocate the cost of maintaining water levels.  Higher water levels favor barging, but also favor electricity generation.  And since electricity generation is a profit source, can we allocate those profits to the general operation of dams and the reservoirs?

Not sure what the percentage of barge traffic for the US actually travels on the Mississippi RIver (vs the Columbia River and the TVA systems, which DO generate power...), but the dams on 'Ole Man River are NOT for power generation...reference: recent visit to the Great RIver visitor center new St Louis.  THey are stictly to attempt to retain water year round for Navigation and a modicum of flood control.

Highly recommended if you are passing by...tour of the dam and locks, and a barge/pusher simulator. (You thought Trains were hard to stop....) 

[jeaton]

Barge companies pay into a Waterway Trust Fund, from which the federal government gets another deficit buffer.  Currently, barge companies pay more into the fund than what they are getting out if it.

Oh really?  From the Corps of Engineer's Fiscal Year 2007 Budget Request:

CofE Commercial Business Line: Construction, Operations and Maintenance Requested Appropriations-
$1.866 billion.

Sources of Appropriations:  Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, Inland Waterways Trust Fund, Special Recreation User Fees and Disposal Facilities User Fees Total $905 million.

Amount from General Fund to cover the difference:  $961 million.  And another $2.886 billion from the General Fund is kicked in to cover all the other stuff that the Corps does.

Just to get a little more specific expenditures for Navagation just on the Mississippi River and tributaries are $359 million for construction and $542 million for Operations and Maintenance for a total of $901 million.

Totals recieved from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund: $197 million 

You do understand the concepts of more and less?

 

[Anonymous]

The problem is the allegation made by Mr. White that, without subsidies, barging would be more expensive than railroading.  If you take away all forms of subsidies from both modes, the fact remains that barging is a lower operating cost method of transit, and that usually results in lower costs to the end users.

I would presume that barges have to pays fees for each lock that they traverse

Barge companies pay into a Waterway Trust Fund, from which the federal government gets another deficit buffer.  Currently, barge companies pay more into the fund than what they are getting out if it.

FM Is this money collected on a fuel tax for all commercial vessels?

I don't know if it's a fuel tax or just a user fee.  There was a 4.3 cent per gallon tax both barge lines and railroads paid a few years ago for deficit reduction, but that was eliminated.

[spokyone]

The problem is the allegation made by Mr. White that, without subsidies, barging would be more expensive than railroading.  If you take away all forms of subsidies from both modes, the fact remains that barging is a lower operating cost method of transit, and that usually results in lower costs to the end users.

I would presume that barges have to pays fees for each lock that they traverse

Barge companies pay into a Waterway Trust Fund, from which the federal government gets another deficit buffer.  Currently, barge companies pay more into the fund than what they are getting out if it.

FM Is this money collected on a fuel tax for all commercial vessels?

[Anonymous]

The problem is the allegation made by Mr. White that, without subsidies, barging would be more expensive than railroading.  If you take away all forms of subsidies from both modes, the fact remains that barging is a lower operating cost method of transit, and that usually results in lower costs to the end users.

I would presume that barges have to pays fees for each lock that they traverse, which (helps) pay for the upkeep of the lock.  To what extent do they contribute to dredging operations?

I will have to admit that I have no clue as to what a barge's main operating costs stem from.  They pay for diesel, labor, upkeep of the barge, lock fees.  What else?  And of those costs, which tend to predominate?

Lacking any good information, I would agree with you that barges have a lower operating cost than railroads, subsidies notwithstanding. 

Barge companies pay into a Waterway Trust Fund, from which the federal government gets another deficit buffer.  Currently, barge companies pay more into the fund than what they are getting out if it.

One problem you have in allocating "true" costs of barging is how to allocate the cost of maintaining water levels.  Higher water levels favor barging, but also favor electricity generation.  And since electricity generation is a profit source, can we allocate those profits to the general operation of dams and the reservoirs?

Also keep in mind that waterways are open access, not only supporting competing barge companies but also private and recreational users.  Do you charge the same fee to the two fishermen in the Duckworth inboard jet boat as you do the commercial barge operator?  Both take the same amount of water to raise and lower the locks.  And that slack water that supports modern day barging also supports major recreational activities.

Thus, you also have that intangible of a "public good" that needs to be accounted for when determining costs of barging, something we don't have with US railroads outside the NEC.

Keep in mind also that barging is only good for bulk goods at slow speeds, and can't compete for that time sensitive traffic that railroads can (in theory) monopolize.

With the potential profit generated by electricity production, in theory barges should get by scott free, since energy generation covers more than the total costs of maintaining dams, locks, and waterways.  That is, if the electricity were being sold at market prices!

[Datafever]

The problem is the allegation made by Mr. White that, without subsidies, barging would be more expensive than railroading.  If you take away all forms of subsidies from both modes, the fact remains that barging is a lower operating cost method of transit, and that usually results in lower costs to the end users.

I would presume that barges have to pays fees for each lock that they traverse, which (helps) pay for the upkeep of the lock.  To what extent do they contribute to dredging operations?

I will have to admit that I have no clue as to what a barge's main operating costs stem from.  They pay for diesel, labor, upkeep of the barge, lock fees.  What else?  And of those costs, which tend to predominate?

Lacking any good information, I would agree with you that barges have a lower operating cost than railroads, subsidies notwithstanding. 

[Anonymous]

I am not sure that you realize how one-sided you come across on the issue of subsidies.  You keep bringing up the point that the railroads received massive land grants (although railroads were by no means the only recipients of land grants).

But more to the point, the issue is not so much about the initial building of the infrastructure, but about today's upkeep of the infrastructure.  Without dredging, barge traffic on the Mississippi would be limited.  Without dams, barge traffic would be even more limited.  In the old days, barge operators had to contend with low water levels, floods, constantly changing channels, etc.  These factors have been mitigated by public works projects.

 Do railroads receive subsidies?  Sure they do.  But what happened 150 years ago, or even 30 years ago, is of little relevance to the issue of infrastructure maintenance that the railroads must deal with today.

I do appreciate the message that you are trying to convey; I'm only asking that you keep the comparisons relevant.  Thank you. 

The problem is the allegation made by Mr. White that, without subsidies, barging would be more expensive than railroading.  If you take away all forms of subsidies from both modes, the fact remains that barging is a lower operating cost method of transit, and that usually results in lower costs to the end users.

The other thing I was pointing out was that railroads offer these introductory rates, much as the credit card companies do, then after you're in deep they'll jack the rates on you even as service levels drop.  It has happened time and again to other utilities, so why would one infer that it won't it happen to the TVA? 

Of course, this is a bi-modal move currently being used by TVA - rail and barge.  It'd be interesting to see if the TVA could opt back to that move if the all-rail move doesn't work out.

[samfp1943]

18million tons of coal per year would amount to about 1300 loaded coal trains per year, about

3.5 trains PER DAY loaded. 

That must be a big power plant or my math is wrong.

ed

ed:

  I WAS QUOTING FROM MEMORY. Which in my case, was the wrong thing to do, as I had the facts somewhat scrambled; I was able to go into the Memphis Commercial Appeal's web site and find a copy of the article in question:

 

"Shift in shipping

Photos by Alan Spearman/The Commercial Appeal

Deckhands James Barker, David Declue and Brandon Appling do some heavy lifting on McKellar Lake, Memphis' main harbor along the river.
Pilot David Reeves guides a barge shipment on the river. Coal for TVA's Allen Fossil Plant is delivered to Memphis on barges from Illinois. Story Tools 

TVA considers trains instead of bargesfor coal delivery; local rail traffic may rise

By Tom Charlier
Contact
January 14, 2007

In a move that could sharply increase rail traffic into Memphis, TVA soon may begin using trains instead of Mississippi River barges to ship coal to its Allen Fossil Plant.

Tennessee Valley Authority officials are reviewing submittals from firms that responded to a request for proposals to build a major rail-unloading facility at the power-generating plant, which is located along McKellar Lake.

The agency, which provides wholesale electricity to a seven-state region that includes Memphis, should decide within six months whether to pursue the rail option, TVA spokesman John Moulton said. No cost estimate is available yet on the unloading facility.

"It's very preliminary -- we've made no decision yet -- but we are evaluating that option based on cost," he said.

TVA and industry officials said the interest in rail was spurred by rising barge-transport rates and the drought conditions over the past few years that have produced chronic low-water problems in McKellar, which is Memphis' main harbor along the river.

Currently, the low-sulfur coal burned at the plant is carried by rail from mines in Colorado and Wyoming to Cora, Ill., more than 50 miles southeast of St. Louis. There, it is loaded into barges and sent 315 miles down the Mississippi to Memphis.

The plant each year consumes about 3 million tons of coal, enough to fill nearly 1,800 barges. Those shipments constitute roughly 18 percent of the 17 million or so tons of cargo handled at Memphis port facilities annually.

No figures were available late last week as to how much TVA pays for shipping by barge.

But rates have been rising industrywide in recent years to cover the millions of dollars towing companies have invested in a new generation of barges, said Dan Martin, senior vice president and chief commercial officer for Ingram Barge Co., the Nashville-based firm that ships coal to the Allen plant.

"That higher capital base requires a higher rate structure," said Martin, who also noted the rising cost of steel.

In addition to the rising rates, TVA has been troubled by frequent low-water conditions in the harbor. When that occurs, the large string of 25 or so barges must be broken up before the vessels are brought into the harbor -- a time-consuming and costly process.

Despite the costs and troubles, Martin said barges still represent "the most efficient, low-cost means of bulk transport."

Martin also said a shift to trains could lead to more disruption along local roads situated along rail crossings.

It would take more than 27,000 rail cars to haul 3 million tons of coal.

"We bring in all this coal, and it's largely unnoticed in town," Martin said.

However, disruptions could be minimal if the coal is carried into the city across one of the local rail spans over the Mississippi and then routed through mostly industrial areas to the south.

Tom White, spokesman for the Association of American Railroads, said that while barge rates remain lower than rail charges, it's largely because of federal subsidies in the form of dredging on navigation channels.  [They probably put this in to vindicate FutureModal]

"Their right-of-way is built and maintained by the federal government."

Nonetheless, White said, railroads "have become very efficient and can move an awful lot of coal at very low rates."

-- Tom Charlier: 529-2572 (C)Memphis Commercial Appeal

 

[PigFarmer1]

FM seems to have ignored the fact that the AAR, among other functions, serves as a lobbying group for its member roads.  He has also long ignored the fact that modal competition really does exist.  Missouri Pacific had barge competition for years.

The low-water issue brings up another point.  When water levels are low, barge operators customarily raise their rates since barges are restricted to lighter loads at those times. 

FM also missed the boat (Pun sort of intended) on God creating the Mississippi River.  The Army Corps of Engineers created the pools on the Mississippi.  Without the lock system there would be no pools and without the pools we wouldn't have towboating as we know it today.  These  

modern boats

[PigFarmer1]

FM seems to have ignored the fact that the AAR, among other functions, serves as a lobbying group for its member roads.  He has also long ignored the fact that modal competition really does exist.  Missouri Pacific had barge competition for years.

The low-water issue brings up another point.  When water levels are low, barge operators customarily raise their rates since barges are restricted to lighter loads at those times. 

FM also missed the boat (Pun sort of intended) on God creating the Mississippi River.  The Army Corps of Engineers created the pools on the Mississippi.  Without the lock system there would be no pools and without the pools we wouldn't have towboating as we know it today.  These  

modern

[PigFarmer1]

FM seems to have ignored the fact that the AAR, among other functions, serves as a lobbying group for its member roads.  He has also long ignored the fact that modal competition really does exist.  Missouri Pacific had barge competition for years.

The low-water issue brings up another point.  When water levels are low, barge operators customarily raise their rates since barges are restricted to lighter loads at those times. 

FM also missed the boat (Pun sort of intended) on God creating the Mississippi River.  The Army Corps of Engineers created the pools on the Mississippi.  Without the lock system there would be no pools and without the pools we wouldn't have towboating as we know it today.  These are not the boats of the Mark Twain era.  They require a much deeper draft than sternwheelers of the olden days.